Ranking of U.S. Presidents by historians

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen

And for the umteenth time: Then cite the evidence! Otherwise, everything you said is nothing more than conjecture.

The simple fact that Lincoln didn't free any slaves until mid-war should be evident enough that the war was not fought over slavery. Lincoln himself said something along the lines of wishing he could end the war without freeing a single slave at one point during the war when he thought it was getting too nasty to stomach. This is further evidence that slavery was not Lincoln's main focal point for going to war. Why would he mentally abandon his main goal, if slavery was his main goal, for going to war? That doesn't make any sense at all! If that was the case, he would have just retreated and ended the war!

So again, for the umpteenth time, it was fought over the States seceding themselves from the Union. You have to remember that the north won the war so it was therefore given the customary "bragging rights" that most winners tend to get. However, there was quite a bit of guilt in the stomachs of many northerners after the war and there is plenty of evidence of this. They had to come up with some sort of nonsensical motive to justify their invasion of the South and for all the mass murder, raping, pillaging, burning cities to the ground, etc... So, to make themselves look noble rather than barbaric the whole "we did it to free the slaves and reunite the country" themes emerged AFTER the war. Do you really think they'd ever admit any form of guilt - especially when they won?

Just answer this: Why was the war fought over slavery when the Southern States had already seceded from the Union? The South was a separate country at that point. So why would the northerners really care about slavery anymore in THEIR own country? It was gone when the South left! The north had their own country to run anyway they saw fit and if they didn't want slavery then so be it. So, why invade another country and conquer it? So there's further evidence for you that the war wasn't fought over slavery.

I do agree that slavery falls into the mix but it wasn't the single focal point of the war. Even Lincoln himself didn't free a single slave until mid-war. So there's further evidence that it was not really about slavery, at least to him.

Honestly, I think up north the war was fought over financial reasons and control of the South. In the South, the war was fought for the States rights to secede from the Union and to escape the hands of a very controlling and tyrannical north. In a way, the north may have freed individual black slaves but it still enslaved the entire South as a whole AFTER the war by still demanding cotton and other raw goods be farmed and delivered. It's quite ironic really.

[Takeda Shingen]

Originally Posted by thorn69

The simple fact that Lincoln didn't free any slaves until mid-war should be evident enough that the war was not fought over slavery. Lincoln himself said something along the lines of wishing he could end the war without freeing a single slave at one point during the war when he thought it was getting too nasty to stomach. This is further evidence that slavery was not Lincoln's main focal point for going to war. Why would he mentally abandon his main goal, if slavery was his main goal, for going to war? That doesn't make any sense at all! If that was the case, he would have just retreated and ended the war!

So again, for the umpteenth time, it was fought over the States seceding themselves from the Union. You have to remember that the north won the war so it was therefore given the customary "bragging rights" that most winners tend to get. However, there was quite a bit of guilt in the stomachs of many northerners after the war and there is plenty of evidence of this. They had to come up with some sort of nonsensical motive to justify their invasion of the South and for all the mass murder, raping, pillaging, burning cities to the ground, etc... So, to make themselves look noble rather than barbaric the whole "we did it to free the slaves and reunite the country" themes emerged AFTER the war. Do you really think they'd ever admit any form of guilt - especially when they won?

Just answer this: Why was the war fought over slavery when the Southern States had already seceded from the Union? The South was a separate country at that point. So why would the northerners really care about slavery anymore in THEIR own country? It was gone when the South left! The north had their own country to run anyway they saw fit and if they didn't want slavery then so be it. So, why invade another country and conquer it? So there's further evidence for you that the war wasn't fought over slavery.

I do agree that slavery falls into the mix but it wasn't the single focal point of the war. Even Lincoln himself didn't free a single slave until mid-war. So there's further evidence that it was not really about slavery, at least to him.

Honestly, I think up north the war was fought over financial reasons and control of the South. In the South, the war was fought for the States rights to secede from the Union and to escape the hands of a very controlling and tyrannical north. In a way, the north may have freed individual black slaves but it still enslaved the entire South as a whole AFTER the war by still demanding cotton and other raw goods be farmed and delivered. It's quite ironic really.

I'm tired of typing those quote brackets, so I'm going to answer here in block form.

The Emancipation Proclaimation, as I said in an earlier response, freed no slave. It was a political maneuver to persuade the south that defeat was inevitable.

To your second point, for the umpteenth time, why did the southern states seceed? Steve has already done the hard work for us, and posted the actual words from the states. Fear of the abolition of slavery. No 'bragging rights' about it. It is their own words.

There was no invasion. The confederate forces fired first. Also, no nation, not France, Great Britian or any other world power recognized the south's right to seceed to the union. Why would the union, then, accept it, especially after being attacked?

History's facts are against you. You can skew them as you like to prove your point, but the fact of the matter is very clear, whether you like it or not.

[Bilge_Rat]

Thorn69,

You are assuming the South had the right to secede, the federal government did not recognize the right of the rebel states to leave the Union unilaterally. They viewed that action as illegal.

If the Southern states really wanted to assert or confirm their legal right to withdraw from the Union, the proper channel was to the US Supreme Court which is the final arbiter of the meaning of the Constitution

so yes, you are right that the immediate cause was whether the secessionist states had the right to leave, but that begs the question, why did they leave in the first place? It was because they were worried that the election of Lincoln as president would endanger the institution of slavery.

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen

I'm tired of typing those quote brackets, so I'm going to answer here in block form.

The Emancipation Proclaimation, as I said in an earlier response, freed no slave. It was a political maneuver to persuade the south that defeat was inevitable.

To your second point, for the umpteenth time, why did the southern states seceed? Steve has already done the hard work for us, and posted the actual words from the states. Fear of the abolition of slavery. No 'bragging rights' about it. It is their own words.

There was no invasion. The confederate forces fired first. Also, no nation, not France, Great Britian or any other world power recognized the south's right to seceed to the union. Why would the union, then, accept it, especially after being attacked?

History's facts are against you. You can skew them as you like to prove your point, but the fact of the matter is very clear, whether you like it or not.

To answer you for the umpteeth time... (Made it bold with underlining so you don't miss it this time)

The South seceded because of a controlling and tyrannical north.

The people up north were ignorant to the way things had to be done in the South. They wanted to control the South through legislative bills and taxes that would ensure the South would go into poverty. This would allow the north to have further control and power over the South. Money is power and when the South was garnishing in more power than the north at that time through slave labor then the north wanted it stopped at all costs. It's not like the people up north all grew a heart for the black man! This is evident enough in our history considering black people were never really "equals" to white people in any state until the 1960s civil rights era.

Lincoln sent war ships into to Charleston Bay and told them to invade the harbor. That is an act of war. You have no problems with this today when somebody invades Israels waters do you! Quit being so "pick and choose"! You can't have your cake and eat it to in this discussion. Sorry!

Originally Posted by Bilge_Rat

Thorn69,

You are assuming the South had the right to secede, the federal government did not recognize the right of the rebel states to leave the Union unilaterally. They viewed that action as illegal.

If the Southern states really wanted to assert or confirm their legal right to withdraw from the Union, the proper channel was to the US Supreme Court which is the final arbiter of the meaning of the Constitution

so yes, you are right that the immediate cause was whether the secessionist states had the right to leave, but that begs the question, why did they leave in the first place? It was because they were worried that the election of Lincoln as president would endanger the institution of slavery.

They didn't recognize the right to secede until AFTER it was already done. That's sort of like how King George didn't give the colonies the right to secede from Great Britain to form their own nation. If the South had won the war, the north's law's and how they interpreted them wouldn't have made a damn now would it?! Just like we don't give a damn how Britain runs it's country today. You also have to consider the bias intereptation that the north took into account when reading over the Constitution. It was the north that decided what the law was and its legality - not the South's.

[Onkel Neal]

States' rights. Yeah, the right to own slaves

Anyway, at least the right side won.

Originally Posted by Bilge_Rat

Thorn69,

so yes, you are right that the immediate cause was whether the secessionist states had the right to leave, but that begs the question, why did they leave in the first place? It was because they were worried that the election of Lincoln as president would endanger the institution of slavery.

Spoken like a true northerner still clinging to his justification for the invasion, mass murder, rape, pillaging, and burning down of Southern cities and towns. "We did it for the black man"! Yeah right! That's why it took another century for the black man to get rights? Get real! I don't buy it!

Originally Posted by Neal Stevens

States' rights. Yeah, the right to own slaves

Anyway, at least the right side won.

That WAS their right at that time Neal. It was the law of the land during that time period. It's easy for us today to ridicule the people of the past for what they did, or didn't do, but they didn't know any better. They did what they thought they had to do for survival and were just following the pathway that our founding forefathers chose to follow. It was our founding forefathers that had a chance to end slavery before it ever started when this nation began but they chose to keep it because they needed it to build the country up. The people in the South were just following the same concept.

And chances are, if you were born in the South during that time period and had no concept of how the war would have turned out and what life today would be like, you'd be Whistling Dixie and standing up for your State's right to secede from the tyrannical north!

But it's so easy to side with the winning side and belittle the loser when you know all the details and how things turned out. But nobody can really say how life would have turned out if the South had won! It could have ended up better or it could have ended up worse. We'll never know!

[Takeda Shingen]

Originally Posted by thorn69

To answer you for the umpteeth time... (Made it bold with underlining so you don't miss it this time)

The South seceded because of a controlling and tyrannical north.

Nope. Their words speak otherwise. You should read them.

The people up north were ignorant to the way things had to be done in the South. They wanted to control the South through legislative bills and taxes that would ensure the South would go into poverty. This would allow the north to have further control and power over the South. Money is power and when the South was garnishing in more power than the north at that time through slave labor then the north wanted it stopped at all costs. It's not like the people up north all grew a heart for the black man! This is evident enough in our history considering black people were never really "equals" to white people in any state until the 1960s civil rights era.

Conjecture.

Lincoln sent war ships into to Charleston Bay and told them to invade the harbor. That is an act of war.

Yes, it is an act of war if done against a foreign nation, which the south, legally, was not.

You have no problems with this today when somebody invades Israels waters do you! Quit being so "pick and choose"! You can't have your cake and eat it to in this discussion. Sorry!

When did I say anything about Israel? When did anyone say anything about Israel? Enough with the misdirection already. You are bested here.

[Tchocky]

Originally Posted by thorn69

Spoken like a true northerner still clinging to his justification for the invasion, mass murder, rape, pillaging, and burning down of Southern cities and towns. "We did it for the black man"! Yeah right! That's why it took another century for the black man to get rights? Get real! I don't buy it!

You may not "buy it", but what you responded with is nothing to do with bilge_rats question.

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen

[/SIZE]

Nope. Their words speak otherwise. You should read them.



Conjecture.



Yes, it is an act of war if done against a foreign nation, which the south, legally, was not.



When did I say anything about Israel? When did anyone say anything about Israel? Enough with the misdirection already. You are bested here.

The South was legally not allowed to secede - but it already had! It had already left and it was it's own nation for 4 years! After the war was over and the South was conquered by the north, the laws passed that said that seceding is not an option. Like I said before, if the South had won, it wouldn't really have made a damn bit of difference what the north said was legal or not!

The South was legally not allowed to secede - but it already had!

Which means it hadn't.

It had already left and it was it's own nation for 4 years!

No it wasn't, it claimed it was because it had but it hadn't really so it wasn't at all, which is why it didn't get recognised.

[August]

Originally Posted by thorn69

Like I said before, if the South had won, it wouldn't really have made a damn bit of difference what the north said was legal or not!

And if your aunt had stones she'd be your uncle. The Confederates lost their war for the right to keep slaves, get over it.

The "South" remains part of the USA and that is a good thing for the entire country including the south.

Originally Posted by Bilge_Rat

interesting choices, but why Grant? I have a lot of respect for him as a general, but he was not really cut out to be a politician.

A small sub-quote, from within your quote:
". . . he was not really cut out to be a politician."

That in itself, is ONE of the big reasons why.

He also had the guts to say "no" to some very powerful people.
He paid a price for that too, but I'd prefer to stay away from that subject, for the time being.

[razark]

Originally Posted by thorn69

It had already left and it was it's own nation for 4 years!

No, it tried to leave, and failed. It wasn't a separate country, it was a rebellious area.